The more capabilities we have and intertwine, the more possible it seems to make dreams reality. I see each new proven method discovered as possibilities to combine with other methods. There is a new method whereby light drives nanomachines, so electrodynamics is not far-fetched. http://www.physorg.com/news146924474.html

I could even see the protein approach creating self-assembled nanolasers that interface into computer circuity.

Creativity appears to be a major factor in technological progress. We use what’s possible to make what was thought to be impossible.

Good luck with your research. It’s very fascinating!

Ah, but how to connect the atoms together?
Activation energy of course.
Fire high energy photons at the junction of the atoms to give the required activation energy for them to bond.

Why be so limited to making biological processes do molecular assembly? With electrodynamic forces, any atom can be manipulated not just organic elements.

Yes, there’s already modeling and simulation software at all the relevant scales, so a lot of the heavy lifting has been done. For many purposes, existing codes give a good enough description of the relevant physics. What is missing in most areas is appropropriate system-oriented molecular engineering software that builds on this modeling and simulation capability.

The purposes, the model-building and testing operations, the representations, and even the approximations made in the physical models — all can be, and often must be, very different. Good multiscale modeling is important, and relatively weak today, but that’s only part of the story.

I’ve written more here: “Macromolecular Modeling for Molecular Systems Engineering”.

About paths, yes, I see biomolecular and related developments as the most promising directions at present, but they fit together with developments in other areas of nanotechnology, both organic and inorganic. I go into this further in “The Molecular Machine Path to Molecular Manufacturing (1): Foldamers and Brownian Assembly” and links from there.

Regarding time scales for development, the critical question is how long it will take to assemble an effective engineering development program. And the critical question in assembling that development program is how long it will take for the task to be recognized as being both necessary and practical. Science alone is inadequate, because it solves different problems. (As I’ve described, science and engineering are antiparallel.)

Regarding engineering, I think you have the right idea. The best ways to learn the design aspect involve some combination of studying engineering design and solving engineering design problems. The modes of thinking that this develops often apply to a surprising range of activities.

A large part of a typical engineering curriculum, however, might better be described as applied science specialized to a particular field. Even here, the generality may be larger than it seems. The importance of defects, toughness, and cracking won’t come up in a physics class, nor will the nature of manufacturing, though both are remarkably pervasive concerns in technology.

I’d be inclined to bias study toward the more fundamental areas of science, but engineering, too, has fundamental aspects that aren’t part of science at all.

1) I think there are many ways to successfully create the first fully functional inorganic molecular manufacturing device (such as a ‘desktop nanofacotry’) I’m wondering which route do you think will most likely be the fastest/best? for example is using some kind of organic structure (some kind of protein, perhaps) to build the parts and others to link them up the best way?

2) In your opinion, (a)when will the first fully integrated molecular manufacturing device be made? and (b) when will it be readily available (like how computers are today)?

3) In order to demonstrate the excellence and contribute towards this great vision, I think it is important to have both (1) fundamental scientific knowledge [i.e. what is possible, what is achievable, etc] and (2) the ‘thinking of an engineer [i.e. the ability to apply the fundamentals to design -> eliminate false creations -> re-design until you get what you know is possible but more importantly what you want. The fundamentals can be learnt from university and other resources [books, blogs, journals etc]
But how do you learn how to become an engineer? I realize this is a weird question and in some respects probably stupid, because the best and only way is probably see how engineers design (e.g. investigate how the model-T was made, what the engineer thought about when he worked on the design etc) and try to design yourself, is this correct?

Hope your would be able to input, as I realise you are a very busy person, and I wish you the best with whatever you are doing!

Many Thanks in Advance,

Thomas